Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
I.G.
Oct 10, 2000

It's a little amusing seeing reviewers suddenly compare Lynch's version favorably with Villeneuve's after nealy 40 years of universal critical panning.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

I.G.
Oct 10, 2000

I just watched it again, and on the second viewing still really liked it. The only part that I felt started to drag a little bit was the scene at the ecological testing station, between Paul and Jessica's rescue by Duncan and when they escape in the thopter. There's not really any exposition or plot development here that couldn't have been moved somewhere else. Mostly it seemed like a set piece for Duncan to die, and I think his death would have been more effective if it happened more abruptly.

I.G.
Oct 10, 2000

In the book Leto's shield is down when he's shot by the dartgun. I have no idea why they changed it so that his shield was active in the movie--it just confuses the audience and makes it seem like the shields don't work well.

I.G.
Oct 10, 2000

I really liked the presentation of Paul's developing prescient ability. In particular when the reverend mother asks if he dreams things just as they happen, and his response is "not exactly". And then there are visions of a possible future where Jamis is his friend, a vision of his own death, etc. In adapting the script I think there would be a big temptation to simplify his ability to just "seeing the future". But this portrayel feels very close to to the novel, where at first Paul only sees bits and pieces of many possible futures along paths that diverge at critical points in time, which is a much more interesting idea.

I.G.
Oct 10, 2000

It's just a clickbait article and apparently it's working.

I.G.
Oct 10, 2000

Bugblatter posted:

That is the in-universe explanation, but I think the question was more about the thematic justification. The first couple books were intended as warnings against the dangers of charismatic leaders. The later ones seem to have a message of "well actually, ultra hitler could be good (because of a contrived fictional situation)."

I don't think you're wrong. There are a lot of cool ideas in the sequels to the first novel, but anyone other than a dedicated apologist is going to concede they get increasingly unhinged.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

I.G.
Oct 10, 2000

The lack of navigators definitely seems like a missed opportunity. Plus the idea of folding space and actual navigation through folded space could make for some pretty awesome abstract or psychedelic visual sequences. Also Paul's whole plan hinges on being able to destroy spice production and nobody in the movie seems to care about this.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply