⊃∪∩⪽ | Legendary | October 22 2021 | Denis Villeneuve | Returns to IMAX on December 3

[TheDude391]

Lynch's Dune is a fun mess, I do prefer his Baron over the new one (but I like both). Kyle > Timmy any day but Timmy is much much better suited for the material.

[IcarusReborn]

5 hours ago, Valonqar said:

Everyone is fuckin terrible in Lynch's Dune. The movie is a chore to sit through and especially if you've seen gifs and memes and think it might be fun. Nope. Sy Fy adaptation is better. Some uneven acting like not all terrible. 

Nonsense! Lynch's Dune is awesome. It's one of my favorite movies. I really liked the new movie as well, but I prefer Lynch's version, which had some terrific performances. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by IcarusReborn

[Last Man Standing]

1 minute ago, IcarusReborn said:

Nonsense! Lynch's Dune is awesome. It's one of my favorite movies. I really liked the new movie as well, but I prefer Lynch's version, which had some terrific performances. 

I don't understand you, but I'm glad that crazy people like you exist in the world.

[famicommander]

Lynch's Dune is one of the worst movies ever made. An atrocity against both literature and cinema.

[Macleod]

If the book is important to you, that's fine.  But anyone who takes any piece of cinema as beholden to any piece of literature that it might be based on is not taking the art of filmmaking seriously on its own accords.  It's a complete art on its own, yet involves all other arts in its creation.  There are people who spend time on "adaptation studies," but I choose to analyze the values of the visual medium itself and what it can do, regardless of where its source material derives from.  In that sense, for me Lynch's DUNE is a wild fever dream of fascination...  

[famicommander]

1 minute ago, Macleod said:

If the book is important to you, that's fine.  But anyone who takes any piece of cinema as beholden to any piece of literature that it might be based on is not taking the art of filmmaking seriously on its own accords.  It's a complete art on its own, yet involves all other arts in its creation.  There are people who spend time on "adaptation studies," but I choose to analyze the values of the visual medium itself and what it can do, regardless of where its source material derives from.  In that sense, for me Lynch's DUNE is a wild fever dream of fascination...  

I hated Lynch's Dune decades before I ever read the book. It's an utterly horrible movie.

 

The decision to have characters dub over whispered internal monologues on top of close ups of constipation faces is, by a wide margin, the stupidest decision in the history of film. Second stupidest would be having the first ~15 minutes of the movie be various characters speaking exposition directly to the audience.

 

The first rule of cinema is show, don't tell. If you can't find a way to convey that information to the audience visually, you've utterly failed as a filmmaker.

 

I didn't know until much later in life how badly Lynch had butchered one of the greatest novels ever written. I just knew he made a nonsensical mess of a movie with horribly stilted performances, cheesy effects even by the standards of the day (seriously, look at Lynch's Dune side by side with Blade Runner, Return of the Jedi, Search for Spock, Tron, Aliens, etc), and a stupid ending.

[RRA]

8 minutes ago, Macleod said:

If the book is important to you, that's fine.  But anyone who takes any piece of cinema as beholden to any piece of literature that it might be based on is not taking the art of filmmaking seriously on its own accords.  It's a complete art on its own, yet involves all other arts in its creation.  There are people who spend time on "adaptation studies," but I choose to analyze the values of the visual medium itself and what it can do, regardless of where its source material derives from.  In that sense, for me Lynch's DUNE is a wild fever dream of fascination...  

Visually it's (still) rich and some minutia stuff still tops the new film (can we agree Lynch's Stillsuits *own* that one book detail?) but I still find it dull, with the infamous whispering narrative device a goofy disaster. Nevermind that Lynch was clearly in over his head with inexperience, his staging was awkward and got stilted performances from good actors (the producer Dino sabotaging him did him and the movie no favors.) An interesting failure to be sure and you get why it has its cult following because few big budget movies are so psychedelic committed (or misled), a dependable home media performer over the years. 

 

5 minutes ago, famicommander said:

I hated Lynch's Dune decades before I ever read the book. It's an utterly horrible movie.

 

The decision to have characters dub over whispered internal monologues on top of close ups of constipation faces is, by a wide margin, the stupidest decision in the history of film. Second stupidest would be having the first ~15 minutes of the movie be various characters speaking exposition directly to the audience.

 

The first rule of cinema is show, don't tell. If you can't find a way to convey that information to the audience visually, you've utterly failed as a filmmaker.

 

I didn't know until much later in life how badly Lynch had butchered one of the greatest novels ever written. I just knew he made a nonsensical mess of a movie with horribly stilted performances, cheesy effects even by the standards of the day (seriously, look at Lynch's Dune side by side with Blade Runner, Return of the Jedi, Search for Spock, Tron, Aliens, etc), and a stupid ending.

 

The irony is Herbert liked Lynch's movie, even if he didn't like the "make it rain" ending because it missed the point of the book(I get Lynch/Dino wanted to go Star Wars but completely ignoring Herbert's cynical religious/political manipulation theme kinda neuters one of the appeals of the source material.) That has to count for something, right?

 

 

[RRA]

26 minutes ago, IcarusReborn said:

Nonsense! Lynch's Dune is awesome. It's one of my favorite movies. I really liked the new movie as well, but I prefer Lynch's version, which had some terrific performances. 

 

I'll admit that whenever I read the book, the movie's aesthetics is what I by default imagine when imagining the words in my head. (Same way many nerds of my generation are stuck with Kevin Conroy's voice when reading Batman comics.) For a 10 something year old that saw that movie's extended TV cut late one night on the Disney Channel* and being impressed by it, it helped inspire me to check out the book. 

 

I grew older and with the book in hand, I realized....yeah it could've been better to say the least. But the movie had a positive impact for me in the long scheme of things when I look back, even if I'm sure if I was around in '84 and saw the film I probably would've been pissed.

 

*=Ah yes, those were the whacky premium cable days of that network. 

[famicommander]

2 minutes ago, RRA said:

 

The irony is Herbert liked Lynch's movie, even if he didn't like the "make it rain" ending because it missed the point of the book(I get Lynch/Dino wanted to go Star Wars but completely ignoring Herbert's cynical religious/political manipulation theme kinda neuters one of the appeals of the source material.) That has to count for something, right?

He was complimentary about the movie before it tanked but the closer he got to the end of his life the less positively he spoke about the movie. I genuinely think he was just trying not to poison the well for the movie.

 

But even if he did genuinely love it? It's still a horrible movie. He was a great author but that doesn't make him a film critic, nor is he an unbiased source.

[RRA]

3 hours ago, famicommander said:

He was complimentary about the movie before it tanked but the closer he got to the end of his life the less positively he spoke about the movie. I genuinely think he was just trying not to poison the well for the movie.

 

But even if he did genuinely love it? It's still a horrible movie. He was a great author but that doesn't make him a film critic, nor is he an unbiased source.

He wrote the movie positively in his anthology Eye, published well after the movie came and went.

[Hatebox]

The best thing that can be said about Lynch's Dune is that it cemented his aversion to blockbusters and focused his mind on much smaller, more interesting fare.

[CoolioD1]

Timothy couldn't hit that "THE PAAIIIN" like Kyle MacLachlan does

[Ozymandias]

8 hours ago, famicommander said:

I hated Lynch's Dune decades before I ever read the book. It's an utterly horrible movie.

 

The decision to have characters dub over whispered internal monologues on top of close ups of constipation faces is, by a wide margin, the stupidest decision in the history of film. Second stupidest would be having the first ~15 minutes of the movie be various characters speaking exposition directly to the audience.

 

The first rule of cinema is show, don't tell. If you can't find a way to convey that information to the audience visually, you've utterly failed as a filmmaker.

 

I didn't know until much later in life how badly Lynch had butchered one of the greatest novels ever written. I just knew he made a nonsensical mess of a movie with horribly stilted performances, cheesy effects even by the standards of the day (seriously, look at Lynch's Dune side by side with Blade Runner, Return of the Jedi, Search for Spock, Tron, Aliens, etc), and a stupid ending.

 

The Lynch movie looks really hokey just from the stills I've seen.  I've been reading a lot about the history of DUNE coming to the screen lately and even Alejandro Jodorowsky's seemingly lauded "unmade masterpiece" looked like it would've been bad IMO.  Interestingly, I didn't know Ridley Scott was once in pre-production for 7 months on a DUNE adaptation with HR Giger before dropping out to do Bladerunner instead.  I don't think anyone back then would've gotten it right due to the sensibilities and limitations of the time.  Like, could you imagine someone trying to do LOTR in the early 80s?

[dudalb]

9 hours ago, Hatebox said:

The best thing that can be said about Lynch's Dune is that it cemented his aversion to blockbusters and focused his mind on much smaller, more interesting fare.

THIS.

I hated his "DUne" but think that "Blue Velvet" is one of the best films of the 1980's, and remain a huge Twin Peaks fan.

But I admit, his latest films are just plain incromprehensible as far as plot goes.

[von Kenni]

Dune crossed yesterday $50m domestic, should be around $51.6m and add today about $3m to close first week around $54.6m. Showing great legs so. Even better than NTTD despite HBO Max. IMAX/PLF (must see on the big screen) definitely one major factor and WOM another. Still on its way for 50-55% drop for the 2nd weekend and even sub 50% possible but can change still and we won't know it until Monday for sure. If these legs hold, could finish 2nd week over $80m before Eternals arrive.

[Valonqar]

wait, 80M before Eternals would mean it could pass BR2049? Nooooo, BRbros, we got too cocky! 

[Inceptionzq]

 

[EmmaPeel]

On 10/28/2021 at 11:05 AM, Ozymandias said:

 

The Lynch movie looks really hokey just from the stills I've seen.  I've been reading a lot about the history of DUNE coming to the screen lately and even Alejandro Jodorowsky's seemingly lauded "unmade masterpiece" looked like it would've been bad IMO.  Interestingly, I didn't know Ridley Scott was once in pre-production for 7 months on a DUNE adaptation with HR Giger before dropping out to do Bladerunner instead.  I don't think anyone back then would've gotten it right due to the sensibilities and limitations of the time.  Like, could you imagine someone trying to do LOTR in the early 80s?

A Ridley Scott Dune would've been so interesting. I wouldn't have wanted it instead of Blade Runner but maybe a few years after. Either way Villeneuve's was great and I'm thrilled that Part 2 will get made. 

[SpiderByte]

 

[Steele131]

25 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

 

Damn some people are stupid