I love you guys. I needed that totally unexpected belly laugh today.

quote:

Originally posted by copaup:
I love you guys. I needed that totally unexpected belly laugh today.

As it is written.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
I just popped into the Lair to ask a simple question on Dune. I hope you all forgive me for not reading the 12 pages thus far. I haven't seen it and don't want to find spoilers. Preface, I haven't read the book/books nor seen the films.

Simple and quick question.

Should I watch the old Sting version first, or is that unnecessary? I.E. Are the modern ones sequels to the old one, building on it?

And how many modern ones are there currently? Just two I think?

The old Sting version does a much better job with the inner dialogue found in the book which is a feature that the new version of the movie nearly ignores.

Watch them both. But READ the book as neither movie dynamically captures the detail and nuance of the characters and story as is often the case when a book is “reimagined” into film.

If you want the most faithful adaptation, ignore the Lynch version and find the 2000 Sci-Fi Miniseries. Despite it's low budget, it's still the most faithful adaptation of Dune out there and the follow up Children of Dune is even better and gives you a peek at what follows Paul's rise to Emperor.

I am behind the ball.

My wife and I just watched part one and two back to back. Our first time seeing either movie, and our first encounter with Dune in general. We're going to watch the David Lynch movie, and I am considering the book, though my success rate with books is not good.

Man, those movies were friggen awesome. I find myself consistently let down by contemporary Hollywood output, but these movies are certainly an exception to that rule.

I was admittedly pessimistic going into the first movie and, at first, thought it might be a bit too weird for me. I also have a perhaps unfair bias against CGI, and I perceived a lot of it in the first bit of the first movie.

I got over the weirdness pretty quick, and accepted the CGI as mandatory for full realization of the setting. In watching the special features, there's actually less CGI than I thought. They made a significant effort to travel to locations that suited the story's atmosphere, they made some amazing sets, and the sandworm riding had some impressive physical fixtures as well.

I was very happy that there was no in-your-face implementation of odd sexual themes or nudity. The story is rife with opportunity to inject that sort of weird shit, but they kept it PG13, and it's better for it. In a world that loves that kind of stuff, it's impressive they didn't cave. No profanity either.

There are underlying sexual themes. There has to be, when things like bloodlines are in play. There are sexual themes when we're talking about the bad guys, in this case the Harkonnens, because they are often sexually perverted and abusive personalities. The screen writers expertly expressed these themes without making shit weird and graphic. I'd be surprised if the Bene Gesserit series handles these themes as expertly.

It sure is friggen violent. The whole Dune universe seems pretty-well built around violence and pride/honor in combat. This is where I think these new movies may have actually underdone it. The one-on-one fights are quite graphic, but the severity of the larger-scale battles seems almost an afterthought. It seems, to me, that the Fremen don't hardly die, compared to the Harkonnen or Sardaukar. Is that actually right? Are the Fremen fighters that elite in the book, that they more-or-less dominate the battlefields?

One thing I found odd is how frank the characters are in speaking to each other. There didn't seem to be much reverence, just so long as you were somehow affiliated with the great houses or Emperor. The houses have no respect for the Fremen, and treat them accordingly, but the way that lower-ranking, but still house-affiliated, characters speak to the Emperor or Bene Gesserit surprised me. The higher-ranking characters hardle ever seem to take offense to confrontational talk.

Long-story-short, I intend to pursue more Dune media, and I want to learn more about the mythtology.

I thought the first one was spectacular. The 2nd installment was a great watch but many things felt rushed, other things omitted, and I expected a much better film. Still better than most anything coming out these days as quality films are getting rare.

I loved it, but there's two things they did that annoyed me. Chani was one. They took her character and turned her into a self-centered self-righteous Gen Z Californian. In other words, Zendaya. While there was some give in take in the book about the prophecy in the book, the extra time where Chani gave birth to their son only for the Harkonnens to blast Sietch Tablr into dust and murdering their son was more than enough for her to go along with an extermination plan. She also knew about the political "marriage" that was going to happen from Jessica and didn't run away at the end like a pouting little bitch.

The other was running the Gom Jabbar on Feyd-Rautha. The test is given to Bene Gesserits to prove they aren't animals and can override their fight or flight response. "I will not fear. Fear is the mind killer..." Paul was given the test because Jessica defied the Sisterhood and born a son one generation too early for their Kwisatz-Haderach. Feyd-Rautha was a complete animal and would only be used for breeding material to put their eugenics program back on track.

quote:

The screen writers expertly expressed these themes without making shit weird and graphic. I'd be surprised if the Bene Gesserit series handles these themes as expertly.

The only hope that series has is John Spaiths, who wrote the good bits of Prometheus and also helped write both Dune movies, is the showrunner for that series. It's also a series I really don't care what they do with it because 98% of the Dune works by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson was technobabbly trash. I only intentionally read their 2 book conclusion to Chapterhouse: Dune and the only plus side is that they read very quickly unlike Frank Herbert's material.

quote:

It seems, to me, that the Fremen don't hardly die, compared to the Harkonnen or Sardaukar. Is that actually right? Are the Fremen fighters that elite in the book, that they more-or-less dominate the battlefields?

Yes, they are. Dune Messiah and Children of Dune go into some more detail about the conditions on Salusa Secundus where the Sardaukar are trained is suppose to have the more horrific living conditions in the known worlds which is why they were feared. That planet is a paradise compared to Arrakis. You saw the extremes Fremen have to endure just to live on Arrakis, and even the Emperor or the Harkonnens have any idea about the south due to constant sandstorms. Plus, with Paul as their chosen one, the fremen are now on a jihad against all the remaining houses.

quote:

Long-story-short, I intend to pursue more Dune media, and I want to learn more about the mythtology.

For the quick and easy, the two Sci-Fi Channel miniseries for Frank Herbert's Dune and Children of Dune are near faithful renditions of their books with Children of Dune having either a bigger budget or better spent budget. I would also stop after reading Children of Dune. God Emperor of Dune takes place thousands of years later and is mostly Herbert preaching to the reader, Heretic of Dune is several millennia later and isn't a bad read, but it and the followup book Chapterhouse: Dune runs into the comic book problem of, "The Honored Matres are the greatest threat to life!!!" "No, The Honored Matres are on the run against something far worse..." and so on.

Was the omission of Alia (other than her presence in the womb and in the vision on the beech) not a big deal?

Also, it seems that the "southern fundamentalists" and the trip to southern Arrakis was a big change from the source material as well.

It seems the first book could have been a trilogy of films in itself. I wonder why they opted to compress it so much. Why do they (Hollywood) need to churn out relentless crap, but then overly-compress excellent stuff? These Dune films were/are hugely profitable, and they could have been even more so, while providing quality films to the viewer; a rarity nowadays.

Bought the disk - just need to buy a player (still can't decide because of mixed reviews and waiting for a sale; perhaps this weekend?).

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Bought the disk - just need to buy a player (still can't decide because of mixed reviews and waiting for a sale; perhaps this weekend?).

I'm a Panasonic man until someone makes a player that can infinite repeat a BluRay or 4K BluRay disc so I can start a movie at night to help me fall asleep and not stop until I have to wake up in the morning.

quote:

Was the omission of Alia (other than her presence in the womb and in the vision on the beech) not a big deal?

Also, it seems that the "southern fundamentalists" and the trip to southern Arrakis was a big change from the source material as well.

It seems the first book could have been a trilogy of films in itself. I wonder why they opted to compress it so much. Why do they (Hollywood) need to churn out relentless crap, but then overly-compress excellent stuff? These Dune films were/are hugely profitable, and they could have been even more so, while providing quality films to the viewer; a rarity nowadays.

1) No. Alia doesn't do much in the book except freak out the Fremen because a toddler shouldn't be teaching them how to do things. The only big thing she did in the first Dune is kill the Baron, but I much preferred Paul doing the honors and it also avoids having to get a child actor to play an adult. There's a certain irony with Alia killing the Baron that occurs later, but it's minor.

2) That was a change, but also not a big deal. In the book, Fremen lived where they lived and still needed to be united to drive off the Harkonnens. You can say it's a retcon about Herbert's feelings about the dangers of charismatic leaders or for the filmmakers adding an extra dilemma in uniting the Fremen.

3) An interesting thing about the miniseries vs these films is that the miniseries is only 15ish minutes longer than the 2 films. Dune is a horrifically difficult novel to adapt into a movie. It works better as a miniseries, and I also wouldn't object to WB talking the crew to edit back in everything that was cut for a miniseries on MAX. It's a very interesting book, but it's not an exciting one, and if the middle of the book was treated as a $200 million movie, there would be a lot of pissed off people because there wasn't a lot of excitement.

Dune Messiah is a very easy book to do in 1 movie, and the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries did it in one night while nights 2 and 3 made up Children of Dune. That's probably how it would need to go down if they do adapt them in film version.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:
I'm a Panasonic man until someone makes a player that can infinite repeat a BluRay or 4K BluRay disc so I can start a movie at night to help me fall asleep and not stop until I have to wake up in the morning.

Thanks. I'm looking at the DP-UB420-K ($247 but I've seen it offered for $215). It looks like it was released in 2019. I have Apple TV so don't need the streaming stuff. But would be interested in better visuals and/or audio (but won't likely use HDR or Twin Audio - my TV is not HDR capable and skeptical of Twin Audi benefit). But open to both for future proofing.

Also looking at DP-UB154P-K ($199) that was released last year (refresh of prior model DP-UB150P-K $139 launched in 2021?). Same price as the 420 model (when on sale for $215).

Not sure which one I should get when indifferent to price. Panasonic does show a new mode DP-UB450P-K (sounds like a replacement for the 420) but can't find it being sold anywhere yet.

Choices:
1. Get the 420 ($215-$247)
2. Get the 154 ($199) (150 offered for $139)
3. Wait for the 450 ($250?)

Leaning toward the 154 for $199 at the moment. Would probably prefer the 450 for $250 if I could find a retailer.

Thoughts?

Konata, physical media, in this case 4k blu ray, well you need a few things to take advantage of it. You need a panel, appropriate for your MLP in size, to get the “theater” effect that does HDR10 and preferably Dolby Vision also. Dolby Cinema = Dolby Vision + Dolby Atmos, so you can have a Dolby Cinema in your own home. So you need a panel will handle this. I’m still running FALD LED’s, but the OLED is the way. I have one, it’s just a 42” LG C2 OLED in my home office that I use for gaming. The blacks are like wet ink and the PQ is better than the commercial theaters.

Then you need audio. Powered AVR or amps + non powered AVR, and at least 7.1 When you have these things, the discs rip. The theater experience can actually be better at home if you have the right speakers, sub, and power.

I run the Sony players, for 4k discs. As long as it’s a decent model, it’s just about your preferred company you like. I’m a Sony guy so my players and all my FALD LED panels are Sony sans the one LG. When I upgrade my theater panel some year it will definitely be OLED.

This Dune 2 disc is not as good as the first. Still very high quality just not as good as the first film’s disc conversion. That like, BR2049, is a work of art.

Thanks. I have an older UHD Sony XBR panel. I don't think it supports HDR but the picture is otherwise good. My receiver sounds good and supports ATMOS but not DV. It HDMI 4k but not the newer Dolby stuff.

My current setup is 5.1 - small room. Well, room itself is maybe 20x20 but that includes the TV/sitting area, breakfast nook/kitchen. Maybe about 50:50.

I'm definitely in the (upper tier) Sony TV camp - always have been, likely always will be.

But the players have been a mixed bag - none seem to be perfect. I do stay away from the Korean brands though. But these UHD players seem to be limited to basically Panasonic and Sony.

I'm really leaning toward the Pans 154. I don't have HDR, probably don't need the Twin Audio, don't need wifi (LAN is okay / preferre) and don't want streaming. Seems like otherwise the 154 and the 420/450 are about the same visually.

Instead of waiting for sale / availability, I thinking about just getting the 154 now.

As I said earlier in this thread I enjoyed Part 1 but also enjoyed the Lynch version.

Part 2 left me rather cold as I found it underwhelming and too far from the book. So overall I'd say I prefer the Lynch version to this.

ugh. that doesn't bode well. i generally do not like when film makers diverge from books, especially from classics. keep the characters and the storyline the same, at least in spirit. i realize that some things are difficult to convey from book to film. and that some actors aren't able to bring the book to life.

but why materially and intentionally stray? seems a bit arrogant that the film makers think their version of a story or character is better than what the author intended.

Still, looking forward to seeing both 1 and 2 on TV via UHD player - I'm gonna try to buy one tomorrow (brick and mortar) and watch them over the weekend.

My XBR is a bit small and dated and I don't have DV or HDR. And I don't have a full Atmos set up (just 5.1). Still, I'm sure it'll come alive and looking forward to the showing.

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
So overall I'd say I prefer the Lynch version to this.

The Lynch version was, is, and always shall be trash except for the production design unless you want to tell me those stupid "voice weapons" were in the book when they categorically never were. That's a far more unforgivable change than anything Denis Villeneuve did in either of his movies.

I never read the books so have nothing to compare between book and movies, so my thought just as movies, Saw 2 last night. For me, it was a painful watch. Wife fell asleep a couple of times then just gave up and left the room. I should have joined her. I don't remember specifics of 1, but do remember that as a movie it was more entertaining.

I tend to judge series type movies, many of them based on books/games as individuals. Tho based on books/games, each movie as a standalone should be entertaining in it's own right. Not everyone has played the game or read the book, so a movie that spends 2 hours or more explaining some nuance of a story line can be boring as heck.

I liked the first one the first time I saw it. I watched it again last week with my oldest and the next day we watched the second one.

I’m not sure what I thought I liked about the first one. The second one just dragged on and on and on… They beat you over the head with the foreshadowing, so for the most part, there was no wondering at all what was going to happen next.

I have not read the books.

My wife and I almost always watch movies over the course of two or three evenings. We're used to watching them in bits, and it works out well for longer movies like these. That being said, I can't relate to the folks who are commenting on the second movie being a drawn-out affair. Consuming it in the three chunks we did, I enjoyed every bit.

I intend to re-watch them both; though not anytime soon. We've got the 1984 movie coming through the library system, and I am eager to see it, for the perspective it'll afford.

Wow! I read the book in the 70's as a teenager. All the nuances in this thread I don't remember.
Bought the book, will read it again and maybe all the subsequent books.
I did like the movies.