Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
When the novel was originally published in the mid-60s, the Middle East was not on the radar of the average American. I don't think Herbert's obviously intentional Islamic analogies clicked with the average reader.
I first read Dune in the mid-70s, and particularly being military, the Islamic analogies definitely clicked with me. Mahdi...Muad'Dib...can't ignore that. Denis pretty much made the Fremen look as Islamic as possible and still be able to call it an "analogy."
In the 1960s, to my recollection, Herbert's references to an Islamic-style uprising would evoke some kind of righteous enthusiasm, rooting for the underdog, right? Freedom fighters of the Khyber Pass or the Arabian desert, fighting the British, that sort of thing. The Mujahedin freedom fighters of Afghanistan were considered romantic and heroic by many Westerners in those days. So that was Herbert's inspiration, to my knowledge. How the world has changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkwensky
I'm pretty sure 2001 started out as a film. It was loosely based on an Arthur C Clark short story and he also did the novelization, but this was always Kubrick's story. I don't know why people have a hard time following what's going on as the plot is minimal. The novel didn't exactly explain the beginning and the ending either.
Right,it was Clarke's story "The Sentinel" that started it all, and the novelization (also relying on memories of 30-40 years back) was written while the movie was being shot. The novel adds a bit to the Starchild sequences, and it helps, but it definitely doesn't explain everything.
I haven't seen Dune 2 yet, but to my surprise I really enjoyed Dune 1. I read the books (the first 3, anyway) back in the 1980s, and I saw the first Dune movie which was really pretty awful, but I enjoyed it, even so. I have a lot of tolerance for big space operas. So I'm hoping my Dune 2 experience will not feel bogged down by political overtones.
I am seeing so many reviews saying this is the best movie of the year, the greatest science fiction movie ever made, the greatest sequel of all-time, etc.
Maybe I saw a different movie?
Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed DUNE 2 and I'm sure I will watch it again many times, despite its flaws. It was really great spectacle.
But the best science fiction movie ever? The greatest sequel ever? No. Not even close actually. ALIENS was better than DUNE 2. T2 was better. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was better. All better sequels with more emotional resonance, more heart.
"But this is intellectual science fiction!" Okay fine. I'll concede that. But of those types of movies, EX MACHINA was better than DUNE 2. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY was certainly more logically consistent and groundbreaking in terms of cinema. Even BLADE RUNNER was better --- and it had its fair share of gargantuan plot holes.
So yes. DUNE 2 is a really good movie. See it in IMAX if you can. But this isn't a generation-defining movie.
I also found the release date really interesting. February / March is traditionally the "dead zone" of movie releases. The holiday releases are over. The first of the summer releases are not yet out. Traditionally, studios release their B-list in February and March. DUNE 2 is certainly not a B-list movie. I am very surprised it wasn't released over the holidays or delayed till summer.
Something that has genuinely surprised me about the reaction to the DUNE movies:
I was fully expecting ranting and raging from the Far Right. Because it is REALLY hard to watch these movies and not come to the conclusion that the story is saying that Arab world's animosity to the West is not entirely unjustified. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is an apology for jihad, but it is definitely a harsh criticism of the Imperial West.
The first movie already gave us a bit of ranting from the Left, who misunderstood the movie as yet another story of a white savior coming along to save the brown savages. But the sequel is not at all subtle in refuting that. Paul isn't Jesus or even George Washington. Paul is Genghis Khan.
I don't think a lot of people know that the Paul, eventually is responsible for the deaths of trillions as the Atreides eventually tear down the Empire. That is so far down the road though, that I don't think it will be touched on screen.
It's been years since I read the novels so, I might be off a bit.
Haven't seen the 2nd yet but looking forward to it. I liked the more "atmospheric" treatment of the first installment. It was cinematically beautiful, impressionistic, and moody IMHO. Some aspects and details of the 84 release never sat right. I LOVE the new release's ornithopters! Terrible, elegant, lethal dragonflies? Perfect. I want one! I expect part 2 won't be nearly as impressionistic. Too much action and consequence to get through. I hope they spend a little more on the interesting litanies, rituals, and mantras various characters use. Such interesting cultural aspects.
I read the original Dune a couple of times many years ago. There was so much novel meat to everything it was a feast. The sequels just didn't work for me. Too bogged down in morality & religion; pedantic.
God Emperor was my favorite after Dune.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
I expect part 2 won't be nearly as impressionistic. Too much action and consequence to get through. I hope they spend a little more on the interesting litanies, rituals, and mantras various characters use. Such interesting cultural aspects.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "impressionistic." It certainly doesn't look like a Monet.
But one of the things that disappointed me about the first Villeneuve film was the overall blandness of the design, especially on the costumes. We didn't even get to see much of Arrakis beyond various buildings.
DUNE 2 certainly broadens the scope. Not since LAWRENCE OF ARABIA have I felt the beauty and awe of the desert onscreen. The cinematography really is stunning in many scenes. And the actors actually look like they are hot and sweating, not lounging on a movie set.
But we also get several scenes on Giede Prime, which is the horror you think it is. There are some scenes on Kaitain, although they are mostly inside buildings. And I think there was even one scene on Selusa Secundus. So yes, the sequel does show you more of the universe.
With some exceptions (the Bene Gesserit, the Reverend Mothers, and Princess Irulan) I still found the costumes more than a little bland and uninteresting. In the fight scenes it is often hard to distinguish the Fremen from the Sardaukar and the Harkonnens. Not only because they are all in "generic armor," but there is often so much dust in the air that you can't really see what's going on. And Christopher Walken mostly looks like a tired old man walking around in his night shirt because he didn't want to bother getting dressed.
I also found the release date really interesting. February / March is traditionally the "dead zone" of movie releases. The holiday releases are over. The first of the summer releases are not yet out. Traditionally, studios release their B-list in February and March. DUNE 2 is certainly not a B-list movie. I am very surprised it wasn't released over the holidays or delayed till summer.
The writers' and actors' strikes prevented the movie from being released in Nobember 2023, as originally intended. Why they didn't wait until May or June 2024 to release it I don't know - but I am glad they didn't!
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck
I'm just glad that we got a movie that seems to have done better at a screen adaptation of these novels than previous ones.
Disappointed though, that the Guild wasn't really touched on by Denis, would love to see how he portrayed a Navigator.
Ditto to both! I'd love to see Denis's take on a Navigator! Maybe we'll get lucky and see that in the third movie?
I found this film a bit less engaging than the first one, but that may just be due to me being a bit tired when I went to see it on Sunday. It's certainly the best screen adaptation of Dune we've seen to date, and I'm looking forward to watching it again later this week.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "impressionistic." It certainly doesn't look like a Monet.
Agree that word isn't quite right. Struggled to find the right descriptive term. I meant something about the overall feel of settings, situations, how characters were portrayed. Maybe atmospheric is somewhat better? Evocative? Whatever it was, I liked it. Many aspects seem to fit. I like the overwhelming cavernous buildings that dwarf the characters as planets dwarf them. Uncaring and impassive. Still, knowing what's going on and what's going to happen allows me to spend more energy enjoying the depiction instead of keeping up with the plot. So far, I don't particularly like how the worms and how they move through their sand medium are portrayed. They are supposedly massive creatures but the cgi moves them too conveniently quickly and effortlessly.
Last edited by Parnassia; 03-05-2024 at 02:46 PM..
Agree that word isn't quite right. Struggled to find the right descriptive term. I meant something about the overall feel of settings, situations, how characters were portrayed. Maybe atmospheric is somewhat better? Evocative? Whatever it was, I liked it. Seemed to fit. But I know what's going on and what's going to happen. I can spend more energy enjoying the depiction instead of keeping up with the plot.
Very much so. As I said earlier, it's an brilliant illustration for people who already know the story.
De gustibus non disputandum est.
This movie sucks.
Sucks? I think that is way overstating it. I really enjoyed it. But I do admit that this is not the ground-breaking work of genius that so many seem to be declaring it.
Honestly, I think a lot of this stems from two things:
1. Most movies these days are SO BAD that DUNE 2 seems like a masterpiece by comparison.
2. There is a bit of a bandwagon effect going on.
As much as I truly did enjoy DUNE 2 and look forward to seeing it again, its faults are many and glaring.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agree that word isn't quite right. Struggled to find the right descriptive term. I meant something about the overall feel of settings, situations, how characters were portrayed. Maybe atmospheric is somewhat better? Evocative? Whatever it was, I liked it. Many aspects seem to fit. I like the overwhelming cavernous buildings that dwarf the characters as planets dwarf them. Uncaring and impassive. Still, knowing what's going on and what's going to happen allows me to spend more energy enjoying the depiction instead of keeping up with the plot. So far, I don't particularly like how the worms and how they move through their sand medium are portrayed. They are supposedly massive creatures but the cgi moves them too conveniently quickly and effortlessly.
